Ugh...Superior Court Strikes Again

[knight0334]

"(g) As used in this section:
(1) The term "Federal facility" means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties."

So would "part thereof" mean the parking lot if it were part of the lease? The wording of the lease could specify office and parking space for employees, ... and would this mean the non federal employees who also work in that office and use the same parking lot and be held to the same law?

Red means a whole structure.

Green, "part thereof", means any part of a building - like a shop within a mall. "Thereof" is in reference to the building mentioned prior. Thereof what? ...the part of the building. That does not include lands.

[tl_3237]

"(g) As used in this section:
(1) The term "Federal facility" means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties."

So would "part thereof" mean the parking lot if it were part of the lease? The wording of the lease could specify office and parking space for employees, ... and would this mean the non federal employees who also work in that office and use the same parking lot and be held to the same law?

^^^ what he said.

"part thereof" refers to parst of the building itself - like when there is shared facilities between Federal and non-Federal functions within the same structure. It does not refer to appurtenances to the building like a parking lot.

Wherever the prohibition does apply, it would not discriminate between Federal and non-Federal employees.

[Sgt.K]

<snip>
How crazy can this go??

Pull up a chair, Padawan...

[BenFoo]

The Superior Court was unfortunately correct, there's no basis in the law for the fired employee's claim.

This wasn't a case of a zany citizen ignoring a path to victory and pulling a loss from a winnable situation, after the lower courts misbehaved.

This was a case where no foundation had been laid for his claims. Much like the Hollis case against ATF, which the Heller case set up to lose. We can't win "because gun rights & stuff"; we win where we ask the court to make one small step in the right direction, and then in the next case we make the next step. Small wins, not so flashy, but "wins", not losses that further erode our future ability to win. Big losses now sabotage the future small victories.

The "at least we tried" crowd is actively helping the enemy.

Or, as you suggest, we can win by getting the laws passed that give us a cause of action. In this case, while I oppose all legislation that gives one person a right to use another person's property against his will, and I favor letting the market decide whether employers are free to disarm employees, or skip lunch, or pay $1 per hour...I'm in favor of allowing licensed citizens to keep their legal guns in their own cars, while traveling for work, or while parked on company property. That kind of law strikes the right balance between the competing rights of employers and employees.

(I'm also in favor of legislatively creating strict liability for ANYONE who intentionally disarms others, but fails to protect them. If your employer creates a victim disarmament zone and you're shot at your desk or on a sales call, there should be strict liability against your employer.

We need this to give the bean-counters pause; right now, your employer faces more legal tort liability if an employee shoots someone than if a stranger kills an employee. The cold, smart employer would rather have a dozen of you employees killed than have an employee kill a suspected intruder. It's why most of the pizza places and cab companies forbid their employees from carrying guns, or other weapons.)

The liability should extend beyond just work. If i am not allowed to store a firearm in my vehicle, they should be liable for anything between as well. My drive, if i need to stop and get gas, pick up some milk on the way home..etc. Their decision impacts my ability for defense until I arrive back home and am able to re-arm myself. Thusly, their liability should also cover the same.

[WhiteFeather]

Sure thing, and this ruling made it law of the land. PA's Superior Court rulings are binding precedence for all lower courts, across the entire Commonwealth.

Only a PA Supreme Court, US 3rd Circuit, or US Supreme Court ruling could undo this via judicial opinion. (there might be another Appeals court in there somewhere though)

knight0334 has correctly identified the CORE issue here.

This is the problem here in PA, people often want to run to the courts with (with less than ideal cases, and or hire inexperienced lawyers), THEY LOSE and appeal and LOSE AGAIN, set negative case law wiping any grey area in the laws to give someone else a break that might have existed prior to ruling.

NOW we are all stuck with binding case law, where there is not many avenues to fix the problem left, except to correct the law by amending the text of law through legislation process to provide added protection.

As you can read in OP we been trying to fix this problem with legislation for well over a decade with Parking Lot property controlled by commercial / corporation / organizations, that don't care about people personal safety to and from their parking lot.

Much like in the past big corporations didn't have to care about employee safety on the job or work place, if they got injured, they had no legal liability, it was much cheaper just to hire a new brakeman and too bad if they got killed manually operating the brake, corporations would just hire another rather than to spend money on mechanical brakes.

This is how corporations viewed anyone they hired till legislation forced them to operate differently, this is the core issue at the parking lot legislation and to give them legal protection from lawsuit in exchange, same as it was done for them to encourage other mitigation safety measure to be put in place at the work places.





BTW here is the other part of the problem IF you just want to run to the courts….


Do you blindly trust them to make court decision, without knowing their heart and minds to make wise choices and follow the constitution?


Does anyone look at records, public statement or personal speak with judges when they are first running for election or retention?


Firearm Owners Against Crime (FOAC) does....

If you took the time to investigate you would out there are not many that are for individual liberty minded view points before the election and many judges get "black robe disease" once they sit on the bench.


The PA primary is coming up on May 19, 2015 are you voting to protect freedom? or planning on working extra hours to make a few more coins so you can hire a lawyer when the text of the UFA bites you in the rear?

If you need help checking out who is worth voting for.

Go to FOAC and get a pro gun votes guides for your area of the state
https://foac-pac.org/Voter-Guide

Who gets elected to office can have MAJOR legal consequences to you Freedoms

[eyecanshoot]

What if you borrowed someone else's vehicle and drove it to work?

I know someone that was asked to sign a paper stating that her employer could search her vehicle for drugs and alcohol. This person didn't own a car and regularly borrowed a car from someone else. She had said that she would sign the paper but she made it clear that she would not and could not give consent to search someone else's property.

She felt that they could not terminate her for refusing to violate someone else's right to an unreasonable search. Since the good Samaritan that let her borrow their vehicle had no stakes in the search that a search by her employer would be seen as unreasonable. She never received any response from her employer.

[tl_3237]

What if you borrowed someone else's vehicle and drove it to work?

I know someone that was asked to sign a paper stating that her employer could search her vehicle for drugs and alcohol. This person didn't own a car and regularly borrowed a car from someone else. She had said that she would sign the paper but she made it clear that she would not and could not give consent to search someone else's property.

She felt that they could not terminate her for refusing to violate someone else's right to an unreasonable search. Since the good Samaritan that let her borrow their vehicle had no stakes in the search that a search by her employer would be seen as unreasonable. She never received any response from her employer.

They could terminate her for just about any or no reason with some very few exceptions as cited in the Superior Court case. In particular read page 4.

Nothing you posit in your scenario would seem to protect her from termination - IMO.

[ideaman]

They could terminate her for just about any or no reason with some very few exceptions as cited in the Superior Court case. In particular read page 4.

Nothing you posit in your scenario would seem to protect her from termination - IMO.

That is a serious concern. I worked for a utility and entered peoples homes. In certain neighborhoods, some homes reeked with weed which would saturate your clothes and tools.

The utility would use dogs to sniff your trucks, if found on your truck you would be tested and listed even though you're clean.

[eyecanshoot]

They could terminate her for just about any or no reason with some very few exceptions as cited in the Superior Court case. In particular read page 4.

Nothing you posit in your scenario would seem to protect her from termination - IMO.

The right of a court to declare what is or is not in accord with public policy exists only when a given policy is so obviously for or against public health, safety, morals, or welfare that there is a virtual unanimity of opinion in regard to it.

It was against her morals to allow her company to violate the privacy of an innocent third party. If you worked for me would you violate the rights of others because I would fire you if you did not? She believed she had both moral and legal standing and I agreed with her.

[GunLawyer001]

It was against her morals to allow her company to violate the privacy of an innocent third party. If you worked for me would you violate the rights of others because I would fire you if you did not? She believed she had both moral and legal standing and I agreed with her.

Case law says that if you're in control of property, you have the right to consent to searches, and the owner or roommate can't complain (or at any rate, can't get the evidence thereby uncovered, suppressed.)

Ownership doesn't trump current user in this regard. Your landlord can't waive your 4th Amendment rights and let cops search your rented apartment, usually, but your wife can.

I'm not a fan of employers (or school principals) searching vehicles that are locked and parked. But there's no broad moral consensus against it in your example.